Re: [sig-policy] draft-submission - draft-wilson-class-e-00.txt

[David Conrad <david.conrad@icann.org>]

Hi,

On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:48 PM, Stephen Gill wrote:
> > In order to take advantage of 240/4, new code will have to be
> > deployed and there are systems that cannot/will not be upgraded.
>
> Do you have some sense as to what those systems are, code versions,  
> and how
> many?  I know it is on the list of Juniper martians for instance.

As far as I'm aware, pretty much every version of every operating  
system out there (including Windows, MacOSX, Linux, etc) doesn't  
allow configuring 240/4.  Whether or not those OSes are upgradeable  
depends on many factors, of course.  E.g., I don't think Microsoft  
will be supplying a patch for Windows NT/98/etc.

And then there are the embedded systems.

The point is, this is a change of rules way late in the game in terms  
of software deployment and backwards compatibility is of high  
importance to folks trying to sell services on the address space  
allocated.

> Granted, it would take some time, testing, and planning but is it not
> conceivable that reachability could be attained to similar levels  
> as that of
> a normal newly allocated, de-bogonized /8?

I'd be very surprised that the amount of time necessary to  
sufficiently untaint a 240/4 block would be less than the amount of  
time necessary to have significant IPv6 deployment.

> It seems worth considering if possible systems issues can be  
> overcome with
> enough time given for planning if it extends the life of IPv4 by a
> reasonable amount.  It would also be useful to put those  
> considerations into
> the draft whatever the final concensus ends up being.

This was discussed, but the decision was to opt for brevity in the  
document.

Rgds,
-drc